Favourite breed of bw/sw cav?

[carlos]

What is your preference for the combination of quality (avg or sup) and armour (unprot or prot or sup)? I can see arguments for all types, which is a good reflection of how well the points cost in this game has been built.

As for drilled vs undrilled that is not even an issue for me, as I feel cav works best drilled for the turn + move manoeuver.

Thanks

[hammy]

At the weekend I had both superior, drilled, armoured and average, undrilled, protected. Both types worked in the roles I used them for.

I did consider using average, undrilled, unprotected but had 12 points spare and three BG's of unprotected cavalry. In the end I felt it was 12 points well spent as it got me more than one melee at ++ rather than + over the course of three games.

Undrilled cavalry can turn 90 and move just like drilled. The difference (and it is a fairly big one) is that drilled can expand and move while undrilled can't.

Essentially if you take full advantage of the abilities of your troops you will get good value from them. If you for example deploy superior drilled armoured cavalry in a single rank facing javelin light horse and they spend the whole game facing off against them in single rank then you are not tanking full advantage and may as well have used an average undrilled unprotected BG to do the job.

[carlos]

Yes, I meant the expanding move, not the turn and move bit, thanks.

Hammy, have you ever tried unprotected superior bw/sw cav? They are not as versatile as the protected cav, being in essence "heavy" light horse but they should still beat light horse comfortably and be able to shoot and skirmish nicely. What they can't do is run over MF in the open like most other cavalry, I guess.

[hammy]

Hammy, have you ever tried unprotected superior bw/sw cav? They are not as versatile as the protected cav, being in essence "heavy" light horse but they should still beat light horse comfortably and be able to shoot and skirmish nicely. What they can't do is run over MF in the open like most other cavalry, I guess.

Nope but I may well be rebasing at least some of my Huns

At the Games Expo comp I used a 50/50 mix of Turkoman light horse and protected cavalry supported by one BG of ghilmen and one of lancers.

[SirGarnet]

The Ilkhanid Mongols have a wide menu of Cav options starting with the full Arm/Superior on down to Avg and Unprotecteds. Armoured Swords are quite nice in melee, but it's a shooting army so it seems excessive to have everyone armoured.

What would you suggest for downgrades? Stick with Superior and downgrade a portion to Protected (since only a point more than Unprotected), or go down even to Avg Unprotected for a LH backup shooting BG?

I am also curious, if you've seen that or similar lists played, what proportions of LH to Cav are favored for effectiveness? Given the cost as compared with something like Skythians, I'm assuming something like 4 LH in two paired BGs or alternatively individually brigaded with one or two Cav BGs for concentrated shooting.

Also, are taking the small numbers of Knights and Spears/MF available directly or as Armenian allies worthwhile as a standard practice, or is adding non-psiloi types harmful in just creating a slow moving target for the enemy?

Thanks,

Mike

[rbodleyscott]

At the Games Expo comp I used a 50/50 mix of Turkoman light horse and protected cavalry supported by one BG of ghilmen and one of lancers.

Interesting. Did you get good use out of both types of armoured cavalry? With hindsight would it have been better to take both as ghilman or both as lancers, or stick to one of each?

[hammy]

At the Games Expo comp I used a 50/50 mix of Turkoman light horse and protected cavalry supported by one BG of ghilmen and one of lancers.

Interesting. Did you get good use out of both types of armoured cavalry? With hindsight would it have been better to take both as ghilman or both as lancers, or stick to one of each?

The big benefit of the lancers was that as shock troops they don't have to test to charge if disrupted which made them really good against enemy light horse. Even if they were shot disrupted by massed light horse they were certain to be able to charge and shoo them away and then had a decent chance of being bolstered by their nearby general. The Ghilmen in a similar situation could get into a mess more easily.

Another advantage was that in one game I managed to get them into a position to threaten some MF in the open who really had to scuttle for cover and then in combination with some LH I managed to take down a protected spear block. My initial charge bounced with me disrupted IIRC but I bolstered, the light horse managed to disrupt the spearmen then the lancers rode them down to win the game. If anything it was the Ghilmen who didn't earn their keep but were still worth having.

My army was:

IC,TC,TC
4 Ghilmen
4 Lancers
3 * 4 Protected Turkoman cavalry
3 * 4 Turkoman light horse
6 Dailami
6 Light foot archers

[dave_r]

I have tried Unprotected, Average, Bow, Swordsmen Cavalry with the Skythians.

The big problem I found was that they have to be in one rank - otherwise they get shot to pieces (i.e. double plus with most, leading to a 2+ to hit).

This being the case they are very similar to Light Horse as they get the same dice in melee (assuming the light horse are two ranks deep), but being much more effective in impact. This is tempered by the fact they cannot turn 180 degrees and move.

I abandoned the Unprotected Cavalry for Light Horse!

Since most of the armies I use are not cavalry base and endup only having perhaps 2 or 3 BG's then I will always use Armoured as it is the more flexible choice (i.e. can perform a variety of roles as mentioned above) This sometimes means they are over qualified for the role they are doing - i.e. one rank deep against Light Horse, but means I can choose to do many things with the one BG.

[hammy]

I have tried Unprotected, Average, Bow, Swordsmen Cavalry with the Skythians.

The big problem I found was that they have to be in one rank - otherwise they get shot to pieces (i.e. double plus with most, leading to a 2+ to hit).

This being the case they are very similar to Light Horse as they get the same dice in melee (assuming the light horse are two ranks deep), but being much more effective in impact.

This is partly why I went for protected cavalry, they get twice the dice of LH at impact and are a POA up in melee.

Against protected foot if you can get the swordsman counting you are in a decent possition and when you charge disrupted protected spear in the rear with your LH taking away the second rank as well as giving a fighting in two directions POA it is all over very quickly.

[hammy]

The Ilkhanid Mongols have a wide menu of Cav options starting with the full Arm/Superior on down to Avg and Unprotecteds. Armoured Swords are quite nice in melee, but it's a shooting army so it seems excessive to have everyone armoured.

You definitely don't need everyone armoured, superior unprotected shooty cavalry are going ot be pretty good. Protected for 1 point is a bargain though and can often get you a POA in melee.

What would you suggest for downgrades? Stick with Superior and downgrade a portion to Protected (since only a point more than Unprotected), or go down even to Avg Unprotected for a LH backup shooting BG?

If you are only looking at shooting you may be better with more LH and less cavalry. The BIG problem with shooty cavalry is that while they can evade they can't choose to move backwards so if the nasty enemy lancers can get to <1 MU from you then charge there is a jolly good chance you will be in the poo.

In my experience weaker shooty cavalry are best against enemy light horse and light foot who they scare the bejesus out of and protected cavalry do that job really well.

I suppose that in the end it boils down to each type of shooty cavalry is most cost efficient at certain jobs. Armoured superior drilled are good at all of them but no better than protected in some situations and the same or worse than 50% more unprotected light horse in others.

I am also curious, if you've seen that or similar lists played, what proportions of LH to Cav are favored for effectiveness? Given the cost as compared with something like Skythians, I'm assuming something like 4 LH in two paired BGs or alternatively individually brigaded with one or two Cav BGs for concentrated shooting.

Nik reccons that you should have at least one LH BG for every shooty cavalry BG. I tend to slightly more cavalry and slightly less light horse. The Seljuks had 4 cavalry and 3 light horse and I was happy with that mix.

Also, are taking the small numbers of Knights and Spears/MF available directly or as Armenian allies worthwhile as a standard practice, or is adding non-psiloi types harmful in just creating a slow moving target for the enemy?

Medium foot are great if you can use them to dominate terrain. Unfortunately most shooty cavalry armies don't have enough decent MF to do that. One BG of Dailami is both expensive and not really enough to cut the mustard at 800 points and nothing like enough at 1000. Essentially at 1000 points if one BG of Dailami is enough to dominate terrain then the odds are that one BG of any MF would do the job.

The knights may be worth including although they do tie you down a bit. If you take the knights use drilled knights, that way you are far more likely to get them where you need them.

[SirGarnet]

Thank you Hammy. It's very helpful.

I've pointed and laid out 799 ap with
IC, 3 TC,
3 x Armoured Cav BGs
1 x Protected Cav BG
4 x LH BGs
1 x BG of Hospitallers
1 x BG of 6 Kurdish LF archers
all Superior Drilled and at 4 bases except the Kurds

My keeping 3 Armoured Cav rather than 2 was based on caution and not seeing a worthier use of 17 points, unless I drop quality too. Is it profitable to drop quality to pick up 2 points per base? LH wouldn't seem to need rerolls much except for shooting.

Laying it out on the table, it looks wide but thin. Maybe overgeneralled? I like ICs usually for the ability to positively influence a lot of troops, but this is pretty spread out.

Does a shooty cav army with good morale and drill like this and no intention to get in close combat except with an unfair advantage need 4 commanders? Drop the IC- would a 3 TCs suffice for the army and the 80 points pick up another quality BG, or two lesser ones along with some downgrade on the current units?

Any reactions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike

[nikgaukroger]

Nik reccons that you should have at least one LH BG for every shooty cavalry BG. I tend to slightly more cavalry and slightly less light horse. The Seljuks had 4 cavalry and 3 light horse and I was happy with that mix.

For Birmingham with the 5x3 tables I think your baalnce was correct.

Huns are also high up my rebasing list

[hammy]

Does a shooty cav army with good morale and drill like this and no intention to get in close combat except with an unfair advantage need 4 commanders? Drop the IC- would a 3 TCs suffice for the army and the 80 points pick up another quality BG, or two lesser ones along with some downgrade on the current units?

IMO you are right in that you have too many generals. Your troops are pretty good to start with and you are not going to be getting into a lot of drawn out melee combats if things go right.

You need 1 general to hang with the knights (TC), one general to give you a boost against enemy shooting (an IC is perfect for this because of the 12 MU command radius and +2 on CTs) and a spare.

I would drop one TC, downgrade a BG of armoured cav to protected and buy another BG of light horse.